Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] plugin ideas based on Guenter's mix pluginAPI
From: Andrew Harris (squid_AT_rconnect.com)
Date: la syys 04 1999 - 02:14:08 EDT
Personally, I think it should be PHAT: Plug-in Handling Audio Technology
OK, maybe that is a little dumb.
Andrew Harris
squid_AT_rconnect.com
2nb wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, David Olofson wrote:
>
> >> ops sounds cool, but .... well Open Plugin Specification sound rather
> >> .. not very inventive .. but probably what we need for some people
> >> to accept the API.
> >
> >OMPIS... Open Multimedia Plug-In Specification. *hehe*
> >
> >No, seriously, should we try to give a hint as to what the main use of the
> >standard is, or not? Open Plugin Specification is perhaps a bit too
> >non-specific, but OpAPS, Open Audio Plug-in Specification probably doesn't
> >cover all areas where it can be used... Kind of a marketing decision.
>
> hello, i've been following the discussion from the beginning.
> my background and current work are not very interesting since i don't plan
> to contribute and/or propose anything useful at least for the momment. so
> i'll skip any kind of intro.
>
> but your OpAPS acronym set me thinging of a new one:
> TOPAS
> sounds nice
> stands for "The Open Plugin Audio Spec" or gnu-like "TOPAS is Open Plugin
> Audio Spec"
> one bad thing, i remember of at least one graphics product named topas.
>
> 2nb.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:25:53 EST